Jackson v. Fischer, 67 A.D.3d 1207 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Jackson v. Fischer, 67 A.D.3d 1207 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Nowlin v. Titus (nyappdiv, 2021-08-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Nowlin v. Titus
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
We thus address the substance of petitioner's contentions ( see Matter of Jackson v Fischer , 67 AD3d 1207, 1208 [3d Dept 2009]), which we review de novo ( see generally Matter of Medina v Graham , 71 AD3d 1598, 1598 [4th Dept 2010]; Matter of Brown v Coughlin , 210 AD2d 1006 , 1006 [4th Dept 1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Covington v. Fischer (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The applicable four-month statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 217 did not begin to run until petitioner “received notice of the final administrative determination” (Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2009]; see Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 NY2d 832, 834 [1983]), and respondent failed to meet his burden of establishing that petitioner received such notice more than four months before commencing the instant proceeding (see Jackson, 67 AD3d at 1208 ; Matter of Chrysler v Goord, 49 AD3d 1342, 1343 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Covington v. Fischer (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The applicable four-month statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 217 did not begin to run until petitioner “received notice of the final administrative determination” (Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2009]; see Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 NY2d 832, 834 [1983]), and respondent failed to meet his burden of establishing that petitioner received such notice more than four months before commencing the instant proceeding (see Jackson, 67 AD3d at 1208 ; Matter of Chrysler v Goord, 49 AD3d 1342, 1343 [2008]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McKinney v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We find no error in the Hearing Officer’s removal of petitioner from the hearing given his argumentative and disruptive behavior (see Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Canty v. Esgrow
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Finally, we cannot say that the Hearing Officer erred in removing petitioner from the hearing after repeated warnings not to pursue an irrelevant line of questioning and petitioner’s continuing argumentative and obstructive behavior (see Matter of McDaniels v Bezio, 76 AD3d 1129 , 1129 [2010]; Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McDaniels v. Bezio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Nor are we persuaded, after reviewing petitioner’s constant argumentative and obstructive behavior during the hearing in the face of warnings that he could be removed, that the Hearing Officer erred in ultimately doing so (see Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2009]; Matter of Applewhite v Goord, 49 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Champagne v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
We find the instant proceeding to be timely, inasmuch as it was commenced within four months of the deter mination sought to be reviewed, namely, respondent’s August 26, 2008 denial of petitioners’ request for a hearing to determine whether they had violated the July 2004 consent order (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2009]; Matter of Newton v Town of Middletown, 31 AD3d 1004, 1007 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" COVINGTON, RONNIE v. FISCHER, BRIAN
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
The applicable four-month statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 217 did not begin to run until petitioner “received notice of the final administrative determination” (Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1207, 1208 ; see Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 NY2d 832, 834 ), and respondent failed to meet his burden of establishing that petitioner received such notice more than four months before commencing the instant proceeding (see Jackson, 67 AD3d at 1208 ; Matter of Chrysler v Goord, 49 AD3d 1342, 1343 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Carl Jackson
v.
Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 19, 2009.
67 A.D.3d 1207
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O’Shea, J.), entered January 24, 2008 in Chemung County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

[*1208] Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of creating a disturbance, unhygienic acts, interference with an employee and destruction of state property. That determination was upheld upon administrative review and, thereafter, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was untimely, prompting this appeal. We now affirm on different grounds.

Initially, we find that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition as untimely. The statute of limitations period did not begin to run until petitioner received notice of the final administrative determination and respondent bore the burden of establishing that date and, further, that the proceeding was commenced more than four months thereafter (see Matter of Chrysler v Goord, 49 AD3d 1342, 1343 [2008]; Matter of Warburton v Department of Correctional Servs., 251 AD2d 831, 832 [1998]; Matter of Edwards v Coughlin, 191 AD2d 1044, 1044-1045 [1993]). Here, respondent alleges that petitioner received the determination on June 20, 2007, which would have rendered his petition, entered October 25, 2007, untimely. However, the record demonstrates only that petitioner signed for two documents on that date, neither of which can be definitively identified as the determination in question. As such, we conclude that respondent failed to meet its burden and the petition should not have been dismissed as untimely.

Turning to the substance of petitioner’s contentions, we cannot say that, in light of petitioner’s continued argumentative and disruptive behavior, the Hearing Officer erred in removing him from the hearing (see Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 59 AD3d 820, 820-821 [2009]; Matter of Applewhite v Goord, 49 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2008]). Similarly, the record does not indicate, despite the fact that petitioner was removed, that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct the hearing in a fair and impartial manner, or that the determination flowed from any bias (see Matter of Chavis v Goord, 58 AD3d 954, 955 [2009]; Matter of Odom v Goord, 238 AD2d 816, 818 [1997]).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been examined and found to be without merit.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.